Social TV: Multi-Screen Content and Ephemeral Culture

SOCIAL TV

SOCIAL TV

Multi-Screen Content and Ephemeral Culture

Cory Barker

The University Press of Mississippi is the scholarly publishing agency of the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning: Alcorn State University, Delta State University, Jackson State University, Mississippi State University, Mississippi University for Women, Mississippi Valley State University, University of Mississippi, and University of Southern Mississippi.

www.upress.state.ms.us

The University Press of Mississippi is a member of the Association of University Presses.

An earlier version of parts of Chapter 4 was previously published in Television & New Media 18.5 (2017): 441–58.

An earlier version of parts of Chapter 5 was previously published in The Projector: A Journal of Film, Media, and Culture 15.2 (2015): 73–112.

Copyright © 2022 by University Press of Mississippi

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

First printing 2022

∞

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Barker, Cory, 1988– author.

Title: Social TV : multiscreen content and ephemeral culture / Cory Barker.

Description: Jackson : University Press of Mississippi, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2022004661 (print) | LCCN 2022004662 (ebook) | ISBN 9781496840929 (hardback) | ISBN 9781496840936 (trade paperback) | ISBN 9781496840912 (epub) | ISBN 9781496840943 (epub) | ISBN 9781496840967 (pdf) | ISBN 9781496840950 (pdf)

Subjects: LCSH: Social media and television. | Social media—Influence. | Mass media—Social aspects.

Classification: LCC HM742 .B357 2022 (print) | LCC HM742 (ebook) | DDC 302.23/1—dc23/eng/20220210

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022004661

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022004662

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data available

Dedication

To Rachelle, Hutchison, and Piccadilly

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Best Photo Ever

Chapter 1: From TGIF to #TGIT: Simulated Liveness and Flow in Shondaland

Chapter 2: Immerse Yourself Deeper: Building AMC’s Multi-Screen Storyworld

Chapter 3: Rewarding Viewing: Check-Ins and Social Productivity

Chapter 4: Great Shows, Thanks to YOU: Fansourcing and Legitimation in Amazon’s Pilot Season

Chapter 5: It’s What Connects Us: HBO and Platform Authenticity on Twitter

Conclusion: Everyday Ephemeral Content

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am greatly indebted to those who have guided and aided me through this project over the last decade as Social TV transitioned from hyped to discarded phenomenon.

Thank you to the mentors, fellow graduate students, and colleagues who helped me develop my ideas in classrooms, coffee shops, Twitter chats, freelance columns, and conference presentations: Barbara Klinger, Elizabeth Ellcessor, Joan Hawkins, Ted Striphas, David Waterman, Amy Gonzales, Mark Deuze, Bärbel Goebel Stolz, Myc Wiatrowski, Noel Kirkpatrick, Katherine Lind, Saul Kutnicki, Daniel Grinberg, Rebecca Butorac, Jennifer Lynn Jones, Myles McNutt, Austin Morris, Max Dawson, Christine Becker, Chuck Tryon, Karen Petruska, Andrew Zolides, Kaitlin Thomas, Tim Surette, Kerensa Cadenas, Oriana Schwindt, Tony Adams, and Grace Wang.

A major thank you to Laura Portwood-Stacer and the members of the Summer 2019 Book Proposal Accelerator, who helped evolve the project in a much needed way. My gratitude is also with the team at the University Press of Mississippi, my editor Emily Bandy, and the reviewers, all of whom offered great ideas in the later stages of my work.

And finally, the biggest thanks to my family: to my parents, John and Sherry, for their facilitation of my lifelong obsession with TV; to Piccadilly, for her S-tier companionship and enthusiasm for head-clearing walks; and to Rachelle, for her endless support and sharp feedback as I finished this in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the birth of our first child, Hutchison.

SOCIAL TV

Introduction

BEST PHOTO EVER

During ABC’s live telecast of the Eighty-sixth Academy Awards on March 2, 2014, host Ellen DeGeneres walked down the aisle and spoke to stars Liza Minnelli and Lupita Nyong’o before stopping next to Meryl Streep. DeGeneres had a question for Streep and the global audience. You are nominated a record-breaking eighteen times, right? So, I thought we would try to break another record right now with the most retweets of a photo. As DeGeneres described her selfie plan, a bewildered Streep interjected that the person sitting behind her, Julia Roberts, should also be in the photo. Roberts mockingly placed bunny ears near Streep’s head, but DeGeneres was undeterred. The host recruited other nearby stars—including Nyong’o, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie—to squeeze in for the photo. Excited murmurs spread across the Dolby Theatre as DeGeneres and Cooper bickered over who would take the picture and how to hold the smartphone for maximum coverage. Cooper finally snapped the image. The audience cheered. Streep mumbled to DeGeneres, I’ve never tweeted before! Moments later, DeGeneres posted the photo to her Twitter account (@TheEllenShow) with the caption, If only Bradley’s arm was longer. Best photo ever. #oscars.

DeGeneres got her wish. Within thirty minutes, the tweet attracted more than 700,000 retweets and nearly 200,000 favorites (now known as likes). In less than twenty-four hours, the tweet received almost 2.7 million retweets and 1.4 million favorites, nearly quadrupling the previous record set by a 2012 tweet sent by then-US president Barack Obama. As DeGeneres later announced during the telecast, the enthusiastic response to the tweet even managed to disable Twitter for 20 minutes. The outage inspired Twitter’s corporate account to post, The envelope please … to @TheEllenShow—this is now the most retweeted tweet with over 1 million RTs. Congrats! The ensuing news coverage of the Oscars focused as much on how DeGeneres and friends broke Twitter as it did the usual winners, losers, and red-carpet fashion.¹ The moment has pervaded popular culture memory. Time magazine selected the selfie as one of the 100 most influential photos ever.² The Simpsons parodied it. Subsequent award show hosts have similarly tried to go viral with antics that exploit the chaotic potential of live television.

Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of Streep or Cooper, DeGeneres’s tweet was not just a fun moment between celebrity friends. It was also the result of the collaboration between Twitter, ABC, Oscar producers, and sponsors. Fred Graver, then-head of TV at Twitter, later revealed that his team worked with DeGeneres and the telecast’s producers to generate unique moments that would spike engagement on the social platform.³ DeGeneres floated the celebrity selfie idea during one of these brainstorming sessions, but Graver and producers were unsure if the host would follow through. Samsung, which committed $20 million in promotional time for the telecast, pushed for the idea, and for DeGeneres to use its Galaxy Note 3 device for the photo.⁴ Though DeGeneres skillfully orchestrated the scene on the fly, the virality of the image generated significant attention for Twitter, ABC, and Samsung.⁵

The photo was hailed as yet another sign of the game-changing impact of social media on television. This narrative swept through the media and technology industries in the late 2000s. Across trade conferences, trade presses, and product introductions, industry leaders proposed that social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and venture capital-backed start-ups would shift television viewing into a multi-screen participatory experience accentuating the immediacy of live television. To hear executives and promotional campaigns tell it, television audiences would contribute to real-time conversations, engage more sincerely with programs, and explore bonus content on social platforms or corporate-backed mobile apps.⁶ This imagined intersection between television and social media came to be known as Social TV.

To a degree, the circumstances of the Oscar selfie show the influence of social media on television. Here were A-list actors, known for tight control over their star personas, cramped together to take a cell phone picture. The Academy Awards ceremony is Hollywood’s most prestigious event and one of television’s biggest live events, but the crucial moment of the telecast chased social media buzz. Though the photo happened in a live amphitheater on television, it was distributed to Twitter to create conversation and inspire memes among the live audience and broader social media public. Industry discourse played into this distribution, stressing how DeGeneres captured social records, broke Twitter, and helped usher in a new vision for product placement. In the eyes of the media industries, the Oscar selfie was far more legible as a social media event than it was a television moment.

However, the moment still happened live—with a small delay—on television. Though preplanned, the time between when DeGeneres explained her plan to Streep and when Cooper snapped the photo was an acutely televisual moment where it felt like anything could happen. Without DeGeneres’s performative questioning of Streep, Twitter users would not have known of the host’s desire to break a record. Without the show’s live television audience (44 million in the US), the tweet likely would not have hit the record at all, let alone in a few hours.⁷ Despite the discourse angling to prove that the Oscar selfie typified social media’s transformative effect on an old technology and medium, the photo showed that the US television industry had already synthesized social media into its normal practices. DeGeneres’s selfie shenanigans were strategic, part of a now-familiar plan to generate social media attention for the Oscars that could extend the impact of the live telecast from one screen (television) to many others (phones, tablets, and laptops). Amid the social media hoopla, key industrial strategies related to television survived.

Ellen DeGeneres’s 2014 Oscar tweet, which she called the best photo ever.

This book reveals how the television and tech industries promised—but failed to deliver—a Social TV revolution in the 2010s. Hollywood and Silicon Valley prophesized a world where the throng of screens in US households would synchronize to a collective, participatory experience. Social TV was pitched as a way to resist the progressively fragmented and on-demand nature of television but, more important, as a way to bring audiences together in shared virtual spaces and reward them for their viewership. Although Twitter received much of the attention, Social TV also emerged via television networks’ mobile apps and start-up platforms that offered bonus content and digital prizes related to beloved series.⁸ But the fan-friendly discourses about Social TV’s potential elided predictable corporate maneuvering to monetize multi-screen data in an anxious, transitional moment before streaming redefined television—again.

I use Social TV to describe the intersections between social platforms and television, including 1) the schemes used by the media industries that combine television and social content; 2) the web-enabled second screens (phones, tablets, laptops) where viewers accessed television and social content; 3) the platforms, apps, and websites where viewers, industry professionals, and brands interacted regarding this content; 4) the practices legitimized or marginalized by social platforms’ incursion into the viewing environment; and 5) the conversational threads produced about television and social platforms, by those within the respective industries, press, and consumers. Early analyses of Social TV examined the emergent multi-screen viewing habits and focused on Twitter as a central site of backchannel conversation or new promotional measures.⁹ But the speed at which Social TV fizzled as an industrial concern also influenced its diminished presence in academic research. To a degree, the malleability of Social TV that aided its early hype also led to its dissolution. This book reconstructs the history of Social TV throughout the 2010s to show that, even in failure, the phenomenon still impacts how people interact with television and social media in a world of Facebook original series, streaming bundles, and unlimited content options.

REMEDIATING TV AND LEGITIMIZING SOCIAL TV

At first, Social TV merely repackaged familiar Hollywood content, promotion, and audience measurement strategies in new data-rich environments—what Hye Jin Lee and Mark Andrejevic refer to as digital enclosures.¹⁰ For the television industry, Social TV served as a way to appear responsive to shifts in technology and the activity of ascendant online fan culture. The movement enabled industry veterans to reiterate the aura of live broadcasting, the programmed schedule, and brand identity, all bolstered by an inventory of advertisements, product placements, and cross-promotions. Liveness and flow—described by Raymond Williams as the movement from episode to ad break to next episode—have long been seen as essential to the phenomenological experience of watching television.¹¹ But the industry also constructs liveness and flow so that they appear natural to viewers. With on-demand technologies posing a continuous threat to the aura and economic value of live, preprogrammed television, Social TV initiatives aimed to salvage liveness and flow for the modern era as well as to marshal consumers’ multitasked viewing across screens and social platforms. The products promoted liveness strengthened by the connectivity of viewers and a flow synthesizing attention between television screens to mobile devices, leading early analyses of Social TV to refer to the efforts as connected viewing, co-viewing, or co-connected viewing.¹² These modified forms of liveness and flow contributed to an imagined viewing environment that was collective and uniform and yet totally personalized for each participant. In this regard, Social TV tried to harness the contradictions of an increasingly fragmented, individualized experience under the banner of collective, productive engagement.

For tech companies, Social TV served as an entry point to partnerships with legacy media conglomerates and their immense capital and star power. It also perpetuated the enduring Silicon Valley mythology about the democratizing impacts of technology. By the second dot-com wave of the 2010s, tech companies publicly embraced an ethos of disruption and a desire to make the world a better place.¹³ Start-ups of all sizes have pitched better, cheaper, faster ideologies as solutions to rigid and regressive industries from public transit to health care.¹⁴ While the societal impact of companies like Uber or Airbnb is hotly contested, a consequence of the obsession with Silicon Valley in the post-Great Recession America is that tech terminology has trickled into non-tech corners of life. The mantra of disruption—and the promise that new technology will solve problems missed or created by old technology—is part of a history of technological utopianism weaponized by inventors and politicians dating back to the creation of electricity and the steam engine.¹⁵ But the press also plays a critical role in circulating these techno-utopian promises. The industry blog TechCrunch even hosts a popular annual showcase contest for revolutionary start-ups called Disrupt that was famously parodied on HBO’s Silicon Valley for its outsized messaging about technological transformation.¹⁶

The extension of familiar strategies into the social arena was part of what I call a remediation-legitimation cycle, where new technology is positioned to remediate an old medium like television into a more interactive, communal, and democratic entity, only to be subsumed into legitimate (e.g., typical, revenue-generating) practices. Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin theorize remediation as how media reform, recontextualize, and respond to other media, both older and newer.¹⁷ Though television remediates other media—it borrows from radio, film, and theatrical performance, among other forms—it has also been targeted for upgrades by processes of remediation. For Bolter and Grusin, the rhetoric of remediation intensifies the stakes of a potential technological shift.¹⁸ Lisa Gitelman and William Boddy respectively argue that these negotiations and public rehearsals play out discursively, in promotional materials, magazine trend pieces, and legal standoffs.¹⁹ As corporations promoted the disruptive potential of Social TV, they also exploited the imprecise import of activity and information generated within the ecosystem, distilled into metrics like engagement and buzz, to hide their technical function.

According to danah boyd, social implies a place for communities to gather, communicate, share, and in some cases, collaborate or play.²⁰ Human-oriented discourse manifests as simply as the labeling of connections as friends, but it also arrives through discourse about posts attracting social engagement or calls for consumers to join the conversation using a hashtag. Though we might know that engagement equals a mix of likes, shares, and responses, there is no agreement as to what the actual significance of these forms of engagement is. We know that the conversation is what people are talking about on a platform, but users do not always speak directly to each other in the form of a discussion. This positivist, vague language valorizes consumer participation as well as disguises the technical function of platforms that complete tremendous amounts of data collection.²¹ Thus, trade press reports and promotional campaigns espousing Social TV’s power tried to convince industry constituencies—executives, sponsors, audience measurement companies like Nielsen—of this power as much as it aimed to convince consumers. This process normalized certain practices like livetweeting new episodes that could be collected into ratings data and eventually monetized. Social TV products that could not be as easily integrated into industry narratives about collective fan conversations were deemed failed experiments, and in some instances, wiped from the web.

This remediative refrain has been prevalent throughout television’s lifespan with new technology claiming to improve its flaws and to make it more educational, personalized, communal, or democratic. Cable was hailed in the 1960s as a way to evolve television beyond entertainment and into the realm of public service with continuing education programs, home banking, and virtual civic participation.²² The mid-century furor over advertising’s negative impact primed Americans to embrace rhetoric from manufacturers like Zenith that swore remote controls would zap annoying programs and objectionable commercials.²³ VCR makers sold another romanticized vision of consumer control, celebrating the technology’s role in the rise of connoisseurship and time-shifting embodied in the still-common guarantee to Watch Whatever Whenever.²⁴ The proposed solutions of the mid-century gave way to more hyperbolic digital visions fueled by the 1990s obsession with interactivity. Futurists like Nicholas Negroponte seized on television’s reputation as the idiot box by proposing that computing power would make it smarter.²⁵ George Gilder contrasted how television lulled viewers into a stupor, while computers enabled users to become richer and smarter and more productive.²⁶ Phillip Swan promised that computer-assisted televisions would become so smart that viewers would have to be educated about their capabilities.²⁷

These accounts demonstrate the incongruities within idealistic visions for television and within remediation-legitimation cycles. The perception of cultural frustration with television in the mid-twentieth century produced the right conditions for utopian promises to emerge. While cable, the remote control, and the VCR caught on with consumers, the innovations did not fix television, nor did they eliminate the nuisance of ads and sponsors. Indeed, their popularity only intensified US television’s relationship with targeted ads and product placement. As each new invention failed to prevent television from being overrun by ads and distasteful programming, another arrived to save the day.

Meanwhile, the television industry has viewed disruption skeptically to continue delivering live audiences to sponsors. The resistance manifested through disciplining of consumer behavior and criticism of industry partners. As 1980s viewers zipped through channels and commercials, network leaders questioned their ability to deliver accurate information in Nielsen diaries.²⁸ When Nielsen later found that the diaries underestimated the cable audience up to 45 percent, networks called for new correct measurement practices.²⁹ By the mid-1980s, the industry knew that millions used VCRs, but conflicting reports could not determine how, when, or the impact on ad recall.³⁰ The conjecture festered paranoia that both the VCR and Nielsen needed to be meticulously scrutinized for their role in upsetting the neat and ordered business of ratings.³¹ Pleas for revisions of the diaries and more VCR information led to the creation of Nielsen’s People Meter, which asked participants to chart their viewing via a device connected to the television.³² But again, once the new system revealed lower ratings for broadcasters, network heads raised concern about viewers having to do data entry.³³

A similar pattern emerged with the computer-powered DVR, which was initially condemned for its commercial-skipping technology. After manufacturer TiVo released a rebellious ad campaign featuring television executives being tossed from the window of a boardroom, the industry went on the offensive.³⁴ Turner Broadcasting’s Jamie Kellner equated fast-forwarding through ads with a DVR to stealing.³⁵ In 2001, more than twenty-five networks sued TiVo’s competitor, ReplayTV, for an unlawful scheme that attack[ed] the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television nonbroadcast services.³⁶ Network leaders also blamed the nervous advertising industry for its resistance to change in the face of declining live viewership and complained about the failure of the Nielsen monopoly to evolve alongside modern technology.³⁷ But despite the public protests, networks and studios saw the DVR’s potential to offer detailed information about viewers and subsequently pressured Nielsen to develop multiple audience tracking initiatives: first, a deal with TiVo and second, a full-scale DVR rating that tallied viewership up to seven days after an episode’s original live airing.³⁸

The turbulent response to new technology and its impact on live viewership demonstrates the contradictory positions of the television industry. For years, network executives both critiqued and empathized with consumers over their alleged disorderly behaviors. They supported Nielsen’s methodology until new technology and viewing practices hinted that live viewership was on the decline. They demonized technology as troublesome and indoctrinating of unwitting consumers until they needed other new processes to better tabulate ratings that would not diminish ad rates. Altogether, the responses show the industry’s desire to maintain existing partnerships and models at all costs. It is not that networks see all technological innovations as bad; it is only those that threaten the vital practices that are worth attacking, maligning, and urging partners to overcome. But once the utility of an insurgent technology is identified, it is legitimized within existing schemes and framed as beneficial for everyone. The contradiction of remediation is that new technology is both problem and solution.

Social TV emerged during another crisis moment for the US television industry. Networks spent the second half of the 2000s trying to survive the rise of the web, high-definition video streaming, and mobile accessibility by extracting value from what John T. Caldwell calls second-shift content via a litany of distribution methods.³⁹ They turned to mobisodes, character blogs, alternative reality games (ARGs), digital comics, podcasts, and transmedia storytelling tactics to sustain online interest in programs between episodes and seasons.⁴⁰ Studios embraced digital stores like iTunes and Amazon Video and streaming portals like Netflix and Hulu as evolutions in the home video market. Some executives even argued that ARGs, mobisodes, and video streams could inspire more passionate fans to watch live, ad-supported episodes.⁴¹ But between DVRs, digital stores, and streaming portals, live viewership for non-sports programming began to fall sharply by the early 2010s.⁴² Fears about cord-cutters, consumers who ditched their cable packages, percolated in the trades and business sections of national publications.⁴³ Led by Apple’s iPhone and iPad, the abundance of smartphones and tablets enabled more mobile and on-demand viewing. The anxieties about time- and place-shifting and even greater audience segmentation created the proper climate for Social TV to be viewed as another techno-savior.

Indeed, though early experiments with social media—including corporate-run Facebook fan pages and participatory ARGs—were met with resistance or dissonance, once networks toyed with forms of live engagement, Social TV was treated more seriously. Fox devised tweet-peat events that displayed a ticker of Twitter commentary from viewers, producers, and performers at the bottom of the screen during September 2009 reruns of Fringe and Glee.⁴⁴ The promotion drew criticism from viewers for the distracting placement of the ticker, but Fox executives were pleased to learn more about the audience’s nascent multitasked, multi-screen habits.⁴⁵ NBC promoted the September 2010 premiere of Community with a Twittersode, which saw accounts for the sitcom’s characters exchange tweets in real time using an approved hashtag (#NBCCommunity) in the hour before the episode’s debut.⁴⁶ By spring 2011, the use of hashtags to live-tweet new episodes or major events had become standard practice. Comedy Central then popularized the use of hashtags as on-screen chyrons after the Roast of Donald Trump (#trumproast) generated more than 27,000 tweets in a few hours.⁴⁷ A month later, CBS expanded live Twitter promotion with its #TweetWeek campaign, where the network’s stars fielded questions directed to a hashtag (e.g., #Survivor) during live episodes.⁴⁸

Meanwhile, armed with a fast-growing user base and no clear revenue model, Twitter embraced its role as a collaborator before it could be pegged as an antagonistic disruptor. In a blog post, co-founder Biz Stone argued that Twitter’s real-time integration into coverage of the 2008 US presidential election demonstrated how Twitter could make television more interactive and possibly even have a democratizing effect on the medium.⁴⁹ Twitter regularly used its blog to disseminate data regarding increases in user activity during live televised events like the Super Bowl and award shows.⁵⁰ The company also published guides for networks and celebrities looking to craft engaging live-tweeting events.⁵¹ Twitter later introduced Amplify, which allowed networks to purchase sponsored posts during live broadcasts and monetize them with pre-roll third-party ads.⁵² Twitter declared that its integration into the television experience constituted the new water cooler, with hashtags positioned as the front door to the shared conversation.⁵³ Crucially, Twitter’s pitch stressed the mutual benefit of the relationship; the company did not attack television for its failures but rather angled to improve the viewing experience for everyone.

#TrumpRoast was one of the first on-screen hashtag chyrons.

Similarly, after facing staunch criticism from partners in prior eras, Nielsen tried to proactively measure social activity and its relationship to live viewership. A 2011 study of 150 million social posts and 250 television series discovered a statistically significant relationship between posting and watching, particularly among the 12–17 and 18–34 age groups.⁵⁴ Nielsen and partner NM Incite determined that weekly peaks in social posts about television correlated with viewership.⁵⁵ By 2012, a cascade of overlapping reports found that while watching television, 40 percent of viewers used a second screen, 50 percent chose the smartphone, and 60 percent used tablets.⁵⁶ Research firm Trendrr found an 800 percent growth in Twitter chatter about television from 2011 to 2012, with every month drawing at least double the number of posts compared to the prior year.⁵⁷ In response, Nielsen unveiled the Twitter TV Ratings, a metric for reporting the total number of tweets and their reach (or how many people saw them) related to television. Nielsen and Twitter partnered on the new rating to serve their Hollywood partners and maintain their viability in the Social TV space. Network executives declared that the data should be instantly viewed as legitimate because it would help all related industries.⁵⁸ The adherence to data—in ambiguous forms of reach, impressions, and check-ins—had the same purpose as Nielsen’s television or DVR ratings: to convince sponsors that social platforms could facilitate lucrative multi-screen initiatives for industry content and to demonstrate to viewers a standardized system for how to participate in the Social TV ecosystem.

Viewed this way, Social TV never intended to revolutionize television as promised in promotional campaigns or press speculation. But it also failed to sustain consumer interest in live, synchronized, and collective viewing, particularly as Netflix increased its spending on licensed and original programming across the 2010s. Legacy media companies, previously invested in upholding the status of television as a preprogrammed and live product, have been forced to partner with Netflix and develop in-house streaming enterprises. Award show hosts continue to try to top the Oscar selfie with constructed chaos intended to trend on Twitter, but Social TV has fizzled as a dedicated industry project.

Nevertheless, the relationship between television and social media is now more potent than ever. Though networks struggle to persuade modern viewers to watch a new episode live, they have continued to exploit the perceived value of engagement to further embed their brands onto every screen, every platform, and every moment of life. Likewise, Twitter and Facebook used the initial Social TV wave as a springboard to develop and distribute television programs of their own. With television networks posting memes and hashtags on social platforms and social platforms distributing episodes of television, the boundaries between social and television have collapsed into an endless ecosystem of ephemeral content.

The shift in emphasis to creating endless content is important. It relies on television networks developing what Sarah Banet-Weiser calls authentic social brands that augment—but do not undermine—the preexisting brand identities related to television programs.⁵⁹ Media companies now microtarget consumers with multi-million-dollar franchises as well as with comedic Facebook posts, YouTube clips, and hashtag activism on Twitter. Rather than attempt to convert social media chatter into live television viewership, these corporations now look to generate consistent engagement with social media users at any time of the day. Thus, while the initial Social TV strategy failed to meet the early industry hype, this book uncovers that it succeeded as part of an unending corporate media project to control consumer attention on a global scale one swipe at a time. Ethan Tussey sees this shift as part of a procrastination economy focused on capturing our attention on mobile devices during in-between moments.⁶⁰ To an extent, the procrastination economy extends from television’s successful growth into domestic spaces and routines in the twentieth century.⁶¹ But the modern focus on monopolizing attention is also more predicated on a hyper-charged version of network brand identity, which has been an essential tool of audience management since the cable expansion.⁶² Social platforms and digital content drive a more sophisticated form of symbolic or affective relationship branding that attempts to eventize as many possible moments of everyday life.⁶³

EPHEMERAL HISTORIES

Social TV was a fundamentally ephemeral phenomenon. As Paul Grainge explains in his introduction to a collection on ephemeral media, the term describes anything short-lived.⁶⁴ Grainge argues that ephemerality "signifies the relation of media forms to regimes of time (duration, shortness, speed) and regimes of transmission (circulation, storage, value)."⁶⁵ By design, Social TV strategies aimed to structure viewer experience across both of these regimes. On-screen hashtags and second-screen apps tried to strengthen the temporal ephemerality of the televisual moment. They tried to convince people to tune in live lest they miss valuable content on multiple screens. But at the same time, the industry wanted to expand the circulation of social chatter and unbundled digital content.⁶⁶ Rather than challenge